1. It seems very clear that OJ went there to take back what belonged to him. That clears him of robbery, as he wasn't taking someone elses belongings there. He never says anything like "give me you wallet" or "give me all your money". You can clearly hear one guy saying to OJ that "Mike took it" and OJ responds, "I know Mike took it", so even the guy with the goods is admitting to OJ that he knows the stuff belongs to OJ. Since OJ did not have a gun, he is also not going to face any weapons charges. I'm not sure who, if anyone actually had a gun, but it wasn't OJ. He was told by a friend that these guys had his stuff. A meeting was set up and the real thieves were expecting a collector to show up. They didn't know who it was going to be, but they were obviously there waiting for someone to come and buy the stuff, so it seems to me that OJ was invited to come in the room as an anonymous collector. So I don't see how he could be charged with any kind of breaking and entering or burglery charges. It also is very strange that the guy who set this whole thing up was carrying the tape recorder of what I just listened to. What was his ral motive for getting OJ in that room? Was he hoping to make some money from the tape, or maybe someone else set this up that has so far remained behind the scenes? Some of these people have connections to the Goldman family, if nothing else, testified for them in the civil trial. What an interesting coincidense that they turn up involved in a case of OJ's memorabilia being stolen. Hmmmm....

Posted at 1:35PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Joseph Johnson

2. It is a robbery, because the stuff that USED TO BE O.J.'s doesn't belong to him anymore, they belong to the Goldmans. In essence he was robbing from the Goldmans, even if someone else was the stewards of that property (legally or illegally). It's the same thing as stealing property that was stolen to begin with. Verdict: Guilty as Charged.

Posted at 2:12PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Steve K., Hawaii

3. To Joseph Johnson - If you think the fact that OJ did not actually have the weapon will clear him of a weapons charge, you are ill advised. The fact that he did not actually hold a weapon in his hand does not mean he will not face the same armed robbery charge as everyone else. We see it all the time in the streets - one suspect has the gun, one is the looking and one makes the demands. When they get caught - all are charged with armed robbery since they all knew there was a weapon being used in the commission of the crime. As far as your theory that since his wallet wasn't asked for it does not constitute a robbery? Please, the commands given by people telling the complaintants to get over there or get against the wall makes this what is commonly known as a takeover robbery. Even from just this brief segment of tape it seems to suggest that OJ (assuming that is his voice we heard) has implicated himself in the middle of a takeover robbery, though I do not hear any mention of a weapon at this point. As for OJ, too bad for him Johnnie Cochran is no longer there for him. I wonder if he was wearing gloves...

Posted at 2:12PM on Sep 18th 2007 by DC Mike

4. ok i have a problem with this whole thing i mean how can he get charged with stealing when the property belonged to him. two how can he be charged with breaking and entering when he was invited , and i did not hear anything in the recording about any weapon gun knife or otherwise. the property is still oj's until he turns it over himself to the goldmans if he chooses to do so or he could auction it off to help pay towards what is owed the goldmans.

Posted at 3:50PM on Sep 18th 2007 by oj fan

5. I hate to biurst so many bubbles, but the OJ memorabilia do NOT "belong" to O.J. The Goldmans were awarded all rights to those things years ago, and will probably now claim them and sell them to the same people who today are making excuses for him. By all means don't confuse these apologists with facts!

Posted at 5:23PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Dodie

6. "It is a robbery, because the stuff that USED TO BE O.J.'s doesn't belong to him anymore, they belong to the Goldmans. In essence he was robbing from the Goldmans, even if someone else was the stewards of that property (legally or illegally). It's the same thing as stealing property that was stolen to begin with. Verdict: Guilty as Charged"

This comment is not true he the goldmans have to file a motion to assertain this property, though they did they have to request it individualy and the judge has yet to rule so at time of insadent it still belonged to O.J. Simpson. you should learn a little bit about the subject bef you add a comment.

Posted at 6:12PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Brian

7. I can't believe that anyone still tries to defend Simpson. It would be interesting to know how you became so gullible.

Posted at 6:14PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Tom

8. I think the whole world needs to realize that we live in a country with a justice system.Flawed or not the man was aquitted of murder point blank.I feel as if Fred Goldman is a leech trying to get rich off his sons death.Which is wrong and maybe he was the one who set OJ up this time the truth will come out.Look at the facts he has never made a charity in his sons name or anything he uses the monies he recieves for his own personal gain and that you all is low I dont care what you say its low.Fred Goldman needs to understand hes not God and never will be so he needs to watch how he casts all these stones.

Posted at 6:24PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Johnny Drama

9. Do you have the list of items that were awarded to the Goldman's in their civil case? Not everything that OJ owned was awarded to them. For instance, I don't think the clothes he needs to wear are a part of that claim. I know he owns a house in Florida that is not a apart of the claim. He has his pension which is not a part of the claim. So unless every last stolen item in that room was named in the judgment, it still belongs to OJ.

OJ was invited to buy these items. No robbery took place. He believed the items were all his, you can hear as much in the tape recording. Now if other people in the room had other intentions, OJ was not in on those intentions. Sounds like a setup to me. All these people just happened to be in Vegas with OJ memorabilia at the same time as OJ? If you have a tape of OJ asking his friends to bring guns, then ok, I'll be right there with you on throwing him in jail. But you don't have those facts or any other facts yet, so you are prejudging OJ. Hopefully, none of you will ever be on a jury.

By the way, how come no one is saying anything about the guys whole stole the items? Whether those items belonged to OJ or the Goldman's, why aren't you asking for them to be thrown in jail too? It seems to be you should be really ticked off at them for having property that belonged to the Goldman's and screaming that they be thrown in jail for 30 years. But apparently, you don't care about the Goldman's as much as you pretend to care.
Maybe OJ wanted to get those items back so he could turn them over to the Goldman's. No, I don't believe that, but hey, it's based on as much fact as the rest of this speculation being thrown around here.

Posted at 6:41PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Joseph Johnson

10. RELY to joe johnson.... you have no idea what you are talking about. first off all it does not matter what a person is stealing in an armed robbery. second, if oj did not have a gun it has little barring on his charges (he was an accessory to an armed robbery) which in Nevada carries very harsh punishment. third, on tape, oj says the words " dont let anyone leave here" which leaves him guilty of kidnapping or wrongful detainment. fourth, it is not unlikely for individuals dealing in art or collectibles to record transactions. do some research and find out how many digital recording devices where sold in the united states last year. you are turning it into a race thing.... get some common sense. put the race card back in your pocket and take some classes on criminal law before you interject your idiot thoughts into a civil discussion. a picture says a thousand words... so does a tape. pwned

Posted at 6:48PM on Sep 18th 2007 by kanye west

11. oj=overraded junkie..he did wrong, no "butts" about it.. he'll be a lifer and a bendover queen..oj messed up bigtime.. he's going downnnnnnnn............(to oj..you thought you get away with this like you did in your murdering two ppl..you are a joke buddy not a god buddy)......

Posted at 7:25PM on Sep 18th 2007 by CIA

12. When oj goes to trial he will get what in sports is known as a makeup call--why does anyone apologize for this wast of air human being

Posted at 7:40PM on Sep 18th 2007 by al

13. Sure---if this was really a "robbery," then it is armed robbery.

But----If it's not robbery, but instead it was OJ getting some info from the auction dealer, that someone was stealing his goods---then it was one or both of the "collectors" who were the crooks and thieves, and thought they were meeting a buyer.

In that way even carrying a gun to protect yourself in case these "crooks" might be dangerous could be seen dumb, but still prudent if you insist on being a vigilante.

Oj is guilty of taking matters into his own hands and not having the police do this.

Posted at 7:59PM on Sep 18th 2007 by RB

14. Kayne,
It has to be a robbery before it can be an armed robbery. So far, only one person has claimed their were guns involved and he's one of the thieves. It doesn't surprise me he would make such a claim to try and get out of the trouble he faces for stealing the stuff in the first place. And Riccio is too busy trying to make deals to avoid prosecution to be trusted. I was not referring to race when I mentioned prejudging OJ. Race has little to do with prejudice, though many people do aim their prejudices against people of a different race, sometimes even their own. Sometimes it's based on income, sometimes on sex or sexual orientation, sometimes it's about age. I wonder why you assumed the prejudging I mentioned had to do with OJ's race. The fact is, many have decided that OJ is guilty before any of the facts are known. That is prejudice, no matter what your reason, you have judged him before the facts are known.
I agree with you on the issue of not allowing anyone to leave the room. Unless he placed them under citizens arrest, they should have been allowed to leave if they chose to. But so far, I don't see evidence that it was a robbery or that anyone was armed. If the police have come up with guns that were used, that would be different. I am not defending OJ, I don't know if he's guilty or not. The difference between us is that you decide before you know the facts and I say that I would like to see the facts before deciding. So from a certain point of view, you are right, I don't know what I am talking about because I haven't learned the facts. I want to know them and when I do, then I will make my own mind up.

I bought two digital recorders last year alone. I also use my cell phone and computer to record things, so I have no doubt that there are many of them out there. The point I made and you apparently allowed to go over your head was that Riccio admitted to recording OJ in meetings they had before the incident, apparently with some kind of motive. Those are the recordings what I want to hear. I want to know if it was OJ's idea or Riccio's and then I want to know if OJ suggested anyone bring guns or if he was aware that anyone would have them. I want to know what Riccio's real motives were. Was he working for someone else. I heard it suggested, on CBS, that the Goldman's set the whole thing up. I doubt it is true, but it was a compelling argument. Fred Goldman had hired someone to find items OJ was hiding and traced some back to these dealers. When it turned out that they were friends of OJ's at one time, it was planned to set OJ up. Goldman knew who these guys were from the trials and promised not to go after them if they helped him nail OJ for good.
But that was pure speculation and belongs in the trash can with the so called civil discussion that has been anything but civil here.

One thing that is absolutely clear on the tape is that OJ believed the items belonged to him and the guy in the room that he was addressing clearly states that someone named "Mike" took them. So the guys in the room knew they were trying to sell items that were stolen from OJ. No matter who may have legally owned the items, those guys stole them and believed OJ was the owner. Possibly they knew the Goldman's were the rightful owners after the civil suite, in which case they were stealing them from the Goldman's and trying to sell them off in secret.
So please tell me why you aren't mad at these memorabilia thieves for stealing from the Goldman's..... I believe it is because you hate OJ, for whatever reason, and don't care if the legal system does it right or wrong, as long as they put him away. I don't like OJ, never have. When I was a kid I hated him for breaking the rushing record against the Jets, who are still my favorite football team. I haven't allowed my feelings against OJ to cloud my judgement. If people are going to decide ahead of time who is innocent and who is guilty, we might as well burn the rest of the Constitution and start witch burnings again. On the other hand, I kinda like the thing where they tied the witches to a teeter-tawter type of thing, dunked them under water and brought them up every so often to allow them to confess, but if they happened to drowned in the process, they were obviously guilty and it was just God's will.
I don't care why you hate, it all stinks the same to me.

Posted at 8:09PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Joseph Johnson

15. Fred Goldman= Greedy Bastard Trying to get Rich over his sons death!!! Publish that Fred sure you can buy a cup of coffee with it.

Posted at 8:27PM on Sep 18th 2007 by Johnny Drama